It's a shame you disagree, since an understanding of this point is crucial to understanding Scotland's desire for Independence. The fact that you disagree speaks volumes.

So you agree that scotlands influence has 'always been next to zero'?

For a start its a strawman argument, as 'scotland' in the terms you mean doesnt exist at Westminster. And even if it did, hownwould scotlands will be represented better? Thete are numerous views in scotland, places of wealth, deprivation, industry, finance, urban, rural.

It gets to the heart of the SNPs conceit that they think they speak for Scotland. They dont, dont even speak for a majority of MSPs.

But scottish MPs, ergo Scottish voters have clearly had influence. Whether or not it has had enough influence, is obviously a moot point. But to say it has always had next to zero is clearly wrong.

The tories thread has a discussiob aboit how scottish MPs helped bring down a labour government in 1979. Quite influential, no?

There have been numerous Scottish PMs, cabinet members, some very influential thinkers.

The creation of the labour party was heavily influenced by Scots. Id say that was quite important.

The West Lothian Question, named after a scottish MP represrnting a scottish constituency.

And in my lifetime, two scots have led the lib dems, and two have led the labour party (three if you count tony blair). Alastair Campbell is scottish, as are many commentators, journalists and others in and around Westminster.

And of course there are 56 SNP MPs who are doing a sterling job of holding the UK govt to account, arent they?

For a start its a strawman argument, as 'scotland' in the terms you mean doesnt exist at Westminster. And even if it did, hownwould scotlands will be represented better? Thete are numerous views in scotland, places of wealth, deprivation, industry, finance, urban, rural.

It gets to the heart of the SNPs conceit that they think they speak for Scotland. They dont, dont even speak for a majority of MSPs.

But scottish MPs, ergo Scottish voters have clearly had influence. Whether or not it has had enough influence, is obviously a moot point. But to say it has always had next to zero is clearly wrong.

The tories thread has a discussiob aboit how scottish MPs helped bring down a labour government in 1979. Quite influential, no?

There have been numerous Scottish PMs, cabinet members, some very influential thinkers.

The creation of the labour party was heavily influenced by Scots. Id say that was quite important.

The West Lothian Question, named after a scottish MP represrnting a scottish constituency.

And in my lifetime, two scots have led the lib dems, and two have led the labour party (three if you count tony blair). Alastair Campbell is scottish, as are many commentators, journalists and others in and around Westminster.

And of course there are 56 SNP MPs who are doing a sterling job of holding the UK govt to account, arent they?

You're an argumentative soul aren't you?
I expect that you're deliberately misinterpreting the original comment.
Yes, individual Scots have been "influential" in Westminster politics.
But the point which was being made - as I'm sure you know, since you're not daft - is that despite the SNP having 56 out of 59 Scottish MPs, despite Scotland not having voted for the UK Government in what, 50 years, despite Scotland voting very clearly Remain, we can't stop the UK Government from riding roughshod over the Scottish electorate, to the expected decimation of the Scottish economy and the further impoverishment of Scottish people.

And in my lifetime, two scots have led the lib dems, and two have led the labour party (three if you count tony blair). Alastair Campbell is scottish, as are many commentators, journalists and others in and around Westminster.

How would you say these "Scots" have positively influenced Scotlands place in the United Kingdom?

The creation of the labour party was heavily influenced by Scots. Id say that was quite important.

Indeed. But where is that party now? The Labour Party of today couldn't be any further from their original purpose. They may have been started by the Scots, but they have been changed by the wider UK electorate, as to no longer represent what they were created to represent.

The West Lothian Question, named after a scottish MP represrnting a scottish constituency.

Which is based on the untruth that there are political matters that impact England only. All political matters impacting England also effect the wider UK. For example, if the UK Government decides to spend less money on the NHS in England, then this impacts the level of funding available for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. An issue that EVEL completely ignores.

And of course there are 56 SNP MPs who are doing a sterling job of holding the UK govt to account, arent they?

The SNP, like every other MP that Scotland sends down to Westminster can only talk up Scotlands case. I've lost count of the amount of times i've heard Scottish MPs being jeered at Westminster whenever they try to make their own points. Perhaps you don't watch PMQs or the House of Commons live? But the way our MPs are treated down there is nothing short of abhorrent.

You're an argumentative soul aren't you?
I expect that you're deliberately misinterpreting the original comment.
Yes, individual Scots have been "influential" in Westminster politics.
But the point which was being made - as I'm sure you know, since you're not daft - is that despite the SNP having 56 out of 59 Scottish MPs, despite Scotland not having voted for the UK Government in what, 50 years, despite Scotland voting very clearly Remain, we can't stop the UK Government from riding roughshod over the Scottish electorate, to the expected decimation of the Scottish economy and the further impoverishment of Scottish people.

Well yes, but my point was that I think you understood the point that High-On-Hibs was making, but deliberately misinterpreted it in order to continue your argument. So, arguing for argument sake. You've still not addressed his point.

If you & others feel this way too, then why won't the SNP discuss why being a small country under the Euro currency would be an option for them? I don't understand either!

It would be the honest arguement for them to make. Unfortunately in politics, the honest argument isn't necessarily the best argument to make, not if the majority of the electorate will automatically denounce you for suggesting it.

Truth is only beneficial in politics if the electorate actually believe it.

True, they do however speak for 56 out of the 59 Scottish MPs at Westminster.

Nobody said they haven't had influence. "Next to" zero, isn't the same as zero.

Actually, Labour could have saved themselves without the influence of the SNP. They brought themselves down.

How would you say these "Scots" have positively influenced Scotlands place in the United Kingdom?

Indeed. But where is that party now? The Labour Party of today couldn't be any further from their original purpose. They may have been started by the Scots, but they have been changed by the wider UK electorate, as to no longer represent what they were created to represent.

Which is based on the untruth that there are political matters that impact England only. All political matters impacting England also effect the wider UK. For example, if the UK Government decides to spend less money on the NHS in England, then this impacts the level of funding available for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. An issue that EVEL completely ignores.

The SNP, like every other MP that Scotland sends down to Westminster can only talk up Scotlands case. I've lost count of the amount of times i've heard Scottish MPs being jeered at Westminster whenever they try to make their own points. Perhaps you don't watch PMQs or the House of Commons live? But the way our MPs are treated down there is nothing short of abhorrent.

Im not going to argue all of these points, as i said originally they are moot, there is no right answer.

But the point is, i dont think that amoint of influence can be characterised as 'next to zero'.

With regard to your first point, I dont know if i have a problem with thay anymore - i used to care, but what difference does it really make? I suppose i just became a bit jaded and fed-up with the party politics, and afyer the indy ref i made my peace with the decision. I get that to many the opposite happened, but being involved for a while before the indy ref, and observing scottish politics before and after, we seem to habe gone very much backwards amd all this new found fervour and certainty has turned me off.

I always believed an indy scotland woyld have a tough time on creation, some hard years amd a big shock before settling down and doing fine. I used to think it was a proce worth paying. Now i dont.

Lastly, the divisions since indyref habe shown that we are jusy as capable of creating a divided and fractious society as the english, amd i fear am indy Scotland would be riven from the start, and so would contain within it the seeds of its own discontent, and be deformed from birth.

Well yes, but my point was that I think you understood the point that High-On-Hibs was making, but deliberately misinterpreted it in order to continue your argument. So, arguing for argument sake. You've still not addressed his point.

Its why we are all here!

I thougt that the comment was obtuse and untrue, so i argued against it.

I have an aversion to posts that assert certainty where there is none - its just a personal peeve, and so i coulsnt help but challenge it.

I like a discussion of course, but hopefully we all come out of it better (either by clarifying our existing beliefs or challenging them and taking different views)

Im not going to argue all of these points, as i said originally they are moot, there is no right answer.

But the point is, i dont think that amoint of influence can be characterised as 'next to zero'.

I dont know if i have a problem with thay anymore - i used to care, but what difference does it really make? I suppose i just became a bit jaded and fed-up with the party politics, and afyer the indy ref i made my peace with the decision. I get that to many the opposite happened, but being involved for a while before the indy ref, and observing scottish politics before and after, we seem to habe gone very much backwards amd all this new found fervour and certainty has turned me off.

I always believed an indy scotland woyld have a tough time on creation, some hard years amd a big shock before settling down and doing fine. I used to think it was a proce worth paying. Now i dont.

Lastly, the divisions since indyref habe shown that we are jusy as capable of creating a divided and fractious society as the english, amd i fear am indy Scotland would be riven from the start, and so would contain within it the seeds of its own discontent, and be deformed from birth.

Don't you see the driving wedge of division in this country being pushed by the tories though? People talk about the SNP being the biggest divisive factor of the union. I couldn't disagree more. It has always been the tories in my view. They make no real effort to reconcile Scotland as an equal member of the UK. Instead, their attitude is more across the lines of "shut up and get on with it". Not allowing Scotland to have any say over brexit negotiations, when it will probably impact Scotland most of all is completely unacceptable in any true democracy.

I really don't see the positive case of Scotland remaining part of this. The "lets just go along with it" attitude of unionism doesn't sell it for me at all and I can't understand why that's good enough for anyone else.

Don't you see the driving wedge of division in this country being pushed by the tories though? People talk about the SNP being the biggest divisive factor of the union. I couldn't disagree more. It has always been the tories in my view. They make no real effort to reconcile Scotland as an equal member of the UK. Instead, their attitude is more across the lines of "shut up and get on with it". Not allowing Scotland to have any say over brexit negotiations, when it will probably impact Scotland most of all is completely unacceptable in any true democracy.

I really don't see the positive case of Scotland remaining part of this. The "lets just go along with it" attitude of unionism doesn't sell it for me at all and I can't understand why that's good enough for anyone else.

I see it, but i dont agree that it will go away with indy. Of anything it coyld get worse, as scotland could become almost a mirror image of england, with one large area of huge deprivation sucking in resources, at 'the expense' of the more affluent parts. There is already am east / west divide in cultural terms, i fear that would replace it.

Yeah, brexit is a bad one, but i dont value the EU higher than i value the UK. Of course others feel differently which i uninderstand.

I see the english like an errant brother. Annoying, frustrating and at times they can push your buttons like nobody else, bit weve been though a lot together and i wpuld back them in a fight over anyone else, within reason!

And the more indy has become partisan (it never uaed to be suxh a left/right thing - that defo happened towards the end of the ref campaign, which i didnt like and was never comfortable with) the less appealing it looks to me, and the less im prepared to suffer the first few difficult years. It used to feel much more like a cause. Now it feels like a grubby political campaign like amy other, and i know enough od politicians amd campaigns to distrust those.

I see it, but i dont agree that it will go away with indy. Of anything it coyld get worse, as scotland could become almost a mirror image of england, with one large area of huge deprivation sucking in resources, at 'the expense' of the more affluent parts. There is already am east / west divide in cultural terms, i fear that would replace it.

Yeah, brexit is a bad one, but i dont value the EU higher than i value the UK. Of course others feel differently which i uninderstand.

I see the english like an errant brother. Annoying, frustrating and at times they can push your buttons like nobody else, bit weve been though a lot together and i wpuld back them in a fight over anyone else, within reason!

And the more indy has become partisan (it never uaed to be suxh a left/right thing - that defo happened towards the end of the ref campaign, which i didnt like and was never comfortable with) the less appealing it looks to me, and the less im prepared to suffer the first few difficult years. It used to feel much more like a cause. Now it feels like a grubby political campaign like amy other, and i know enough od politicians amd campaigns to distrust those.

Sorry, I can't agree. Several years of hardship is a small price to pay. I can only see divisions between Scotland and England getting worse in political union. It has been a growing trend for decades and I can't see that suddenly coming to an end. I don't think the situation is partisan by choice. We can either send a clear message to Westminster, or we can choose not to do anything at all. But those who believe that doing nothing will simply mean business as usual couldn't be more wrong, we're heading into very dark political and economic times. There's a reason why the tories are so quiet about this election. They have a highly unpopular set of plans which they do not want to speak about. So they're remaining quiet, knowing that they will get the mandate they need for these plans from an unsuspecting electorate.

I see it, but i dont agree that it will go away with indy. Of anything it coyld get worse, as scotland could become almost a mirror image of england, with one large area of huge deprivation sucking in resources, at 'the expense' of the more affluent parts. There is already am east / west divide in cultural terms, i fear that would replace it.

Yeah, brexit is a bad one, but i dont value the EU higher than i value the UK. Of course others feel differently which i uninderstand.

I see the english like an errant brother. Annoying, frustrating and at times they can push your buttons like nobody else, bit weve been though a lot together and i wpuld back them in a fight over anyone else, within reason!

And the more indy has become partisan (it never uaed to be suxh a left/right thing - that defo happened towards the end of the ref campaign, which i didnt like and was never comfortable with) the less appealing it looks to me, and the less im prepared to suffer the first few difficult years. It used to feel much more like a cause. Now it feels like a grubby political campaign like amy other, and i know enough od politicians amd campaigns to distrust those.

Sorry, I can't agree. Several years of hardship is a small price to pay. I can only see divisions between Scotland and England getting worse in political union. It has been a growing trend for decades and I can't see that suddenly coming to an end. I don't think the situation is partisan by choice. We can either send a clear message to Westminster, or we can choose not to do anything at all. But those who believe that doing nothing will simply mean business as usual couldn't be more wrong, we're heading into very dark political and economic times. There's a reason why the tories are so quiet about this election. They have a highly unpopular set of plans which they do not want to speak about. So they're remaining quiet, knowing that they will get the mandate they need for these plans from an unsuspecting electorate.

Fair enough mate, your scenario is as likely as mine.

I dont agree about the dark econonic plans, but i do understand what you mean about small price to pay. I iaed to think similar, but there comes a point at which that price becomes too high.

Your other point is real fundies v gradualists stuff. I was more of a fundy myself when i was younger, but had become more gradualist, mostly because i felt that indy was a process, not am event. I still kinda think that, without some major (federal) reforms of the UK.

It would be the honest arguement for them to make. Unfortunately in politics, the honest argument isn't necessarily the best argument to make, not if the majority of the electorate will automatically denounce you for suggesting it.

Truth is only beneficial in politics if the electorate actually believe it.

Yes exactly this.. That is what drives me crazy about Scotland!!!!!! You like to make life hard for yourselves!

In many ways the SNP have a cult like following from some, in their mind the party can do no wrong whatsoever and are beyond criticism.

Independence to them has no pitfalls and is the answer to everything that society asks.

That's the big problem with politics in general, people blindly follow and take the stance that a particular party can do no right/no wrong. It then descends onto petty name calling and strawman arguments.